"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

These are liberal, really?

The 21st century liberalism movement, on closer inspection, shows itself as actually playing one of the oldest tricks in the book, taking the name of a true movement and using it as a label to do the exact opposite. They have a list of such strongly held views and policies they often have their activists calling it to make it a crime to speak out against them, and if it's a crime already bring in the extremely liberal policy of the death sentence.

A liberal advocating the death sentence, as various groups have done for deniers of global warming? If they want to kill their enemies who have not even committed a crime does that really mean they are liberal, and what then does it tell you about their other motives?

Today's far left share a slew of common policies which may be presented to protect the weak and downtrodden, and stop the planet from being ruined, but look at the results and claims behind them to see the nastiest, most socially divisive plans since Mao's cultural revolution, one which meant killing the intellectuals to make society more equal. He actually did this, to prove what is possible, now they are using subtler versions to reduce free speech and keep their plans going in the face of all opposition. Here is a list of their main plans:

On the surface most of these look fairly harmless. But when protecting the rights of others there comes a point, like when the unions went from protecting the workers against the owners of the businesses who previously had no regulations, to holding the country to ransom as they had too much power, where the balance is overtaken and the downtrodden become the new oppressors. If for instance you already have all the discrimination laws you need then why keep fighting for more rights you already have? And how, exactly, can't anyone be racist against white people?
But in practice we have seen the actual results of such policies. Multiculturalism, as Andrew Neather boasted, was designed to water down bourgeois society as the most severe method of social engineering, only one step below freeing criminals around the world and inviting them in formally, except in fact many did end up here and then were not allowed to be deported as they had a wife, child or cat here and 'it infringed their family rights'. Such rights always have two sides, theirs and society's, and if society loses when theirs are protected something must have been done wrongly.

Equality is not about each life being equal, but an economic and social policy designed to stop anyone getting too far ahead of others. It is actually based on the totally false view no personal qualities are inherited, so it's only society's fault some people do better than others academically and economically, despite genetics proving beyond any doubt as well as twin studies that most people's intelligence and personality is mainly genetic, with social conditions able to make them worse if repressed. But you can't for instance raise anyone's IQ, only allow it to be made the best of, otherwise people with learning difficulties could all be trained out of it, which they clearly aren't.

Inclusivity is fine as far as it goes, but once you have laws stopping discrimination against women, gays and religions etc then that should be it. But like the unions people even speaking against gay marriage or making childish jokes about women are demonised, called bigots, and calls made for such views and speech to be illegal. David Cameron attempted a bill to do just this, to make causing offence a crime, and it nearly got through and may well in the future. Imagine the power of such a subjective clause in the criminal law and how easy it would be to enforce it anywhere and everywhere despite no harm being caused?

The environment already has some of the most stringent laws in the world, and since manufacturing has left the west for the unregulated slave labour of the third world maybe spending the effort trying to get them to adopt the same laws we've had for decades than send our work there, leave them to it, and try and shut down power generation here is not the best allocation of resources, unless the plan was always to return the west to the pre industrial wasteland it once was?

Social justice is a catch all which basically means whatever they want to 'fix' in society will come under that umbrella. Therefore, despite being the only means to educate bright but poor children, David Cameron, the Conservative, dismissed a return to grammar schools, as 'elitist'. So what that actually does is only allow rich families to send their children to selective schools and as a result maintain the elite. Human rights are another good one under this umbrella. Like liberalism, it sounds good, except the unavoidable problem one person's rights affect everyone else and may conflict with them. Keeping convicted foreign criminals here, who entered illegally as criminals, committed more crime, served their sentences at our expense, and were ruled allowed to stay here on release as their rights were being protected is the best example, but that is only one of many similar. Again, where the balance switches to one side from the other the rule has gone too far, and in this case and others where people attacking dangerous criminals were convicted of assault for protecting themselves and their families in their own homes something is very wrong in the system.

The worst actual result of modern liberalism is the protection of opinion. What they have done is to actually protect their chosen groups and any criticism of them is deemed wrong. Therefore if Muslims treat their women like slaves or commit crimes against white girls if you even mention they are Muslims doing it you are racist and Islamophobic (they make up words as well), yet if anyone else did the same thing they would be condemned by them even more than a footballer who used a racist term against another player. Gay marriage is technically a neologism which has attempted to claim it is exactly the same (yes, identical) for a same sex couple to be married as the opposite sex. Forget the fact they cannot only reproduce, but not even consummate the marriage (imagine a lesbian couple finding a way) and the comparison has already gone out of the window. There's no reason not to allow anyone to create a legal union, as they had already in civil partnerships, but you can't make something totally different exactly the same as they now have. So if you simply point this out you're a homophobic bigot, as stated by one of the movement's leading figures, Will Self. If you notice there aren't any people speaking English in your local shopping centre, or no white faces, simply pointing it out, before adding an element of disapproval has been deemed racist, as they don't want any opposition at all, and have set their opinions in stone as something which has no alternative, and if you challenge you should be criminalised. Very liberal indeed. Shut down even one opinion by law and you can potentially add them all.

I hope you have seen demonstrated what is actually an extreme leftist movement of social, economic and philosophical intent. They have their very clear and fixed views of what is right, and like any other cult have raised them above other levels to gospel, any challenge to which should be protected by law, if not already. So by advocating opinions to be made illegal is clearly, even if you agree with their motives, not liberal but some of the most totalitarian ideas known to history. Maybe if the movement either renamed themselves to social fascists, or were named by others, at least everyone would know where they were coming from and be prepared. But like the wolf in sheep's clothing, if the wolf wandered around the flock as itself it would have been dealt with straight away, as normal people would have done with these socially fascistic 'liberals' who have quietly and successfully destroyed British and European national values slowly and gradually until Muslims can happily condemn western values and be protected to do so, and politicians can speak out against the open border policy while doing nothing about it as those new values of nihilistic misanthropism have taken over in almost every area of all main parties, ruling and opposition alike. This atmosphere of oppression is now the bad air of politics in the west altogether, with talking heads being interchangeable from Labour to Liberal to Tory alike as the current fashion to go with the flow of uniformity has taken them all over, and explains totally the rise of the Ukip antidote which is the only current party to undo the new liberalism and replace it with the real sort. Not that I'm promoting a party at all, just explaining how, as Marx pointed out, when society becomes extreme on one side the opposite must form and ultimately water it down. We can only hope, and the same across the world elsewhere as well.